However, the above sentence shall be executed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, from March 201 to December 2012, at the home of the victim C (at the time, 10 to 12 years of age) located in the Madern group in the south of the day from March 2011 to the day of 2012, the Defendant Dad the victim, who was a mixed computer with the victim’s parents, drinking together with the victim’s parents, was her own panty of the victim and her knife the victim’s knife with his panty.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim under 13 years of age.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to record notes (police statement toC);

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 7(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012); and Article 298 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( December 18, 2012), Article 21 (2) and the main sentence of Article 21 (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;

1. Reasons for sentencing of a child or juvenile exempted from disclosure or notification order (in light of favorable circumstances, etc. that are seen as the grounds for sentencing below, it is difficult to deem that a defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime, and in full view of all other circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the defendant has any special circumstances that the disclosure or notification of personal information should not be disclosed or notified)

1. The crime of this case is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant, on the grounds that the Defendant committed an indecent act against a female elementary school student at the time when the Defendant establishes his sexual identity and values in a normal manner, and that the crime is very bad in quality, and that the victim and his family members were deemed to have suffered considerable mental impulse due to the crime of this case.

On the other hand, however, it is.